I don't understand why you would ban it in a country where it has been consumed traditionally. Is there a public health reason behind this?
President Yoon is just trying to grab cheap optics wins, considering he's an overt fascist that has taken numerous Ls. Banning dog meat does very little, it was already pretty much an eradicated food staple and only harms the lowest classes who had to rely on the cheapest forms of meat to sustain themselves. Everyone who could afford better meat was already only eating it.
Functionally, there's no difference between a dog, a pig, or a cow, when it comes to life value. There isn't an economic or moral reason to just ban dog meat other than to make the fascist admin look better.
More of a culture shift. And I think it was traditionally eaten in tight economic times, not because there was any significant meaning or quality in dog meat.
not because there was any significant meaning or quality in dog meat
it actually tastes pretty damn good, somewhere between lamb and pork, imho.
Can confirm, tastes good. This was in Papua New Guinea, the dog was donated to a function to be eaten because it kept killing people's chickens.
What's funny is some tribes will eat dog and not cat, others eat cat and not dog, and they both think the other is weird for their choice.
New level of dog and cat people just dropped.
Fair enough! Lol
I don't think I'd give up beef or pork to substitute dog in there.
I did like the point someone else brought up -- raising dogs for meat isn't economical in terms of the life cost.
Chickens, cows, and pigs can feed a lot more people per animal life than a dog can. (Female chickens produce eggs)
Even lamb -- they can produce wool and milk (... right? Lol).
I don't understand why you would ban it in a country where it has been consumed traditionally. Is there a public health reason behind this?
President Yoon is just trying to grab cheap optics wins, considering he's an overt fascist that has taken numerous Ls. Banning dog meat does very little, it was already pretty much an eradicated food staple and only harms the lowest classes who had to rely on the cheapest forms of meat to sustain themselves. Everyone who could afford better meat was already only eating it.
Functionally, there's no difference between a dog, a pig, or a cow, when it comes to life value. There isn't an economic or moral reason to just ban dog meat other than to make the fascist admin look better.
More of a culture shift. And I think it was traditionally eaten in tight economic times, not because there was any significant meaning or quality in dog meat.
it actually tastes pretty damn good, somewhere between lamb and pork, imho.
Can confirm, tastes good. This was in Papua New Guinea, the dog was donated to a function to be eaten because it kept killing people's chickens.
What's funny is some tribes will eat dog and not cat, others eat cat and not dog, and they both think the other is weird for their choice.
New level of dog and cat people just dropped.
Fair enough! Lol
I don't think I'd give up beef or pork to substitute dog in there.
I did like the point someone else brought up -- raising dogs for meat isn't economical in terms of the life cost.
Chickens, cows, and pigs can feed a lot more people per animal life than a dog can. (Female chickens produce eggs)
Even lamb -- they can produce wool and milk (... right? Lol).
Huh, sounds like what human tastes like too.
The president has 6 dogs as pets ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I wonder if they would ban horse too? They are domesticated, but are in many Korea cuisines.. nah probably not